Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Umm, can someone spell this out for me in black and white please?

i get the picture that the huns are basically being told that they can wind up and start again in the SPL but how has that come about.

i suppose its clarification on the wording of the document im looking for really, 2A and 5 being the main ones...

Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.

The first part of this resolution amends the wording of what constitutes an Insolvency Event under SPL rules.

The second part is designed to bring clarity to what is required for a share transfer to take place.

Resolution Five requires the approval of 11 of the 12 member clubs.

[PatHead]

Could be that the meeting has been cancelled to allow club boards to meet and discuss the proposals before coming back with their own comments. Looks to me like SPL board have come up with these proposals in an attempt to split the 10.

By the way should have seen this coming- Scotsman 14/02/2012

A new “phoenix” Rangers would be created, perhaps going under the name “Glasgow Rangers” as this is not incorporated in their official name, and the headaches would begin for the rest of Scottish football.It is a decision of the six-strong SPL board “on which basis the transfer of a league share” is allowed. By rights, a new Rangers should apply for SFA and SFL membership and join the Third Division. Celtic, from the noises made by chief executive Peter Lawwell would push for an outcome that would retain the SPL’s sporting integrity. However, with television deals and sponsorship contracts sold on the basis of a playing top-flight rivalry between the country’s big two, it is doubtful if the board, as a whole, would risk destabilising the finances of the entire SPL.
It is expected that a three-year points penalty, in the region of 15 points per season, would be pushed for, both in terms of a fairness rebalancing and a deterrent of sorts to others. The three-year period would also be in line with the probability a new Rangers would not be allowed to play European football for three years.
Rangers might not just be in the process of running themselves down – they may be taking Scotland’s top flight, and the country’s footballing reputation, with them.

Really makes you wonder what Lawwell's definition of integrity is

[TrinityHibs]

I'm just about to re-new my season tickets to get the Early Bird benefits but I was just wondering if Rod paps der Hun out of the SPL is he doing it so he will not need to give me free tickets? If thats the case I'd be happy to pass on Celtc tickets if he could get rid of them as well.

[Seveno]

Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.

The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.

GGTTH

[HibbyRod]

Just for clarification ..... if the resolutions (or the key controversial one(s) ) have to be passed by an 11 - 1 vote, does it not just take 2 of the Clubs to vote against it to kybosh the proposed resolution(s)?

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.

The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.

GGTTH

If hibs vote this through then they will deserve some punishment imo, i will prove that they really don't listen to our fans, we ate at the point where we can change the whole of Scottish football for the better

Although i wouldn't finish with hibs for good i certainly wouldn't renew my season ticket and would just pick and choose what games i go to

Football fans are disillusioned with the game as it is, this would be the final straw for many

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which is what I stated, that if they fail to pay the payments, then yes, sanctions need to be imposed.

However, people are citing Lee Wallace as an example, but I seem to recall that the money for Wallace is not due to Hearts until later this year. If i'm recalling that incorrectly, then I apologise. If not, then my original point stands.

Edit: Post number 486 from NY Hibbee states "Its actually £800,000. £500,000 this summer and another £300,000 next."

Rangers have gone into administration. That means that all debts are due now not at the end of the season or a year hence.

So Rangers are in default to Hearts, Rapid, Man City, Chelsea, etc as detailed in the Duff and Phelps document.

[WarringtonHibee]

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...77#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team.

Please check the thread and get it out there!

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.

The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.

GGTTH

If they allow this to happen then it is the custodians of the club who are killing it not the supporters who are unwilling to back a rigged league.
It only takes two clubs to stop this proposal dead in it's tracks.
Hibs need to be one of them or I will withdraw my support. I won't be the only one.

[joe breezy]

Being Hibs is part of my identity, would be strange not supporting Hibs anymore

[Seveno]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they allow this to happen then it is the custodians of the club who are killing it not the supporters who are unwilling to back a rigged league.
It only takes two clubs to stop this proposal dead in it's tracks.
Hibs need to be one of them or I will withdraw my support. I won't be the only one.

I trust that you have written to Hibs then to express your view ?

[sambajustice]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...77#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team.

Please check the thread and get it out there!

Filled out and link posted on facebook!

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.

The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.

GGTTH

I've supported Hibs for years and fully expected to die a Hibs fan, but when common sense, sporting integrity and fair-play are no longer relevant - and the rules can so clearly be "bought" by the OF & Sky TV - then time to draw a line. Why would ANYONE want to be associated with a corrupt sport ? Its one thing to suspect it, quite another for it to be laid out bare for all to see.

It appears that Vlad was right after all.

[ehf]

They haven't even drafted these resolutions properly:

Resolution 2A proposes further sporting sanctions in the event that any Club undergoes an Insolvency Transfer Event (i.e. transfers its share in the SPL to a new company where this occurs because of the insolvency of the transferor) of 10 points in each of two consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.

Resolution 2B proposes revisions to the fee payment arrangements i.e. SPL fees to any Club which has undergone an Insolvency Transfer Event will be reduced by 75% in each of three consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.

These sanctions are placed on the Club which undegoes the Insolvency Transfer Event (ie the Huns) and not the new company to which its SPL share is transferred (ie Hun NewCo), so completely useless...

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...77#post3176277

We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team.

Please check the thread and get it out there!

You need to combine all these surveys, Facebook pages into one focused campaign (with a single voice) for it to succeed.

[Isaac_Refvik]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.

The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.

GGTTH

Ok, how's this for an idea. Supporters of the 'Rebel 10' buy their season tickets as normal but we boycott the Rangers home games. The club still gets the season ticket revenue but the empty home stands show the depth of feeling felt towards Rangers, and the SPL for allowing them to go unpunished. If every club did this it would they would at least send out a message. If Rod and other Chairman still aren't happy they could sell more of the stadium to the unwashed.

[WarringtonHibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You need to combine all these surveys, Facebook pages into one focused campaign (with a single voice) for it to succeed.

That's the idea of this, it's one domain and one twitter account, one central place. Going forward all sorts of questions can be asked in the future, regarding splits, restructure, everything. The idea is to make our voices heard. It needs posting anywhere and everywhere, a good response already.

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok, how's this for an idea. Supporters of the 'Rebel 10' buy their season tickets as normal but we boycott the Rangers home games. The club still gets the season ticket revenue but the empty home stands show the depth of feeling felt towards Rangers, and the SPL for allowing them to go unpunished. If every club did this it would they would at least send out a message. If Rod and other Chairman still aren't happy they could sell more of the stadium to the unwashed.

IMHO that would last maybe one game and then back to normal within a few weeks - a token protest that doesn't come close to addressing the issue. IMHO we need to stick to our main demand = "No to 2A".

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the idea of this, it's one domain and one twitter account, one central place. Going forward all sorts of questions can be asked in the future, regarding splits, restructure, everything. The idea is to make our voices heard. It needs posting anywhere and everywhere, a good response already.

That's great but other fans/groups will emerge with similar ideas, websites etc. You need to combine efforts across all the clubs to have max effect.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok, how's this for an idea. Supporters of the 'Rebel 10' buy their season tickets as normal but we boycott the Rangers home games. The club still gets the season ticket revenue but the empty home stands show the depth of feeling felt towards Rangers, and the SPL for allowing them to go unpunished. If every club did this it would they would at least send out a message. If Rod and other Chairman still aren't happy they could sell more of the stadium to the unwashed.

Giant waste of time. Only the withdrawal of cash will make the board take notice of the fans. We have to make it clear we will not be made to look like idiots because that's exactly what we will be if rangers are allowed back on the league. How will you fell in two seasons time walking into the pub after rangers clinch the SPL at easter road? All the Huns smirking at you?

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they allow this to happen then it is the custodians of the club who are killing it not the supporters who are unwilling to back a rigged league.
It only takes two clubs to stop this proposal dead in it's tracks.
Hibs need to be one of them or I will withdraw my support. I won't be the only one.

No it doesn't. All but two of the resolutions can be passed by an 8-4 majority so it needs five clubs to oppose them. The two 11-1 resolutions are the reduction of SPL money and the redefinition of an insolvency event, which looks to me like a small-print adjustment.

In truth the resolutions need to be considered individually because some are reasonable measures while others are clearly designed purely to save the huns.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No it doesn't. All but two of the resolutions can be passed by an 8-4 majority so it needs five clubs to oppose them. The two 11-1 resolutions are the reduction of SPL money and the redefinition of an insolvency event, which looks to me like a small-print adjustment.

In truth the resolutions need to be considered individually because some are reasonable measures while others are clearly designed purely to save the huns.

I've seen this on the other thread too. At the moment the huns can be waved back in without sanction with the same vote. What measure do you think are designed to save them?

I hate them as much as the next man by the way but I don't see much in this in terms of making it easier for them. If anyhting there are now clear sanctions that would be applied in the event that the SPL did vote them back in. Sanctions that don't exist right now, but the voting back in does.

[grunt]

Crap blog ("mutually exclusive"? Why?) but some interesting comments below.
I thought comment number 1 was very clear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jimspence...ls_provok.html

[grunt]

More from the man at Channel 4

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...aying-owe/1114

[WarringtonHibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's great but other fans/groups will emerge with similar ideas, websites etc. You need to combine efforts across all the clubs to have max effect.

Believe me, this has spread quickly between a fair few clubs, a lot of Hearts and Celtic and a fair few Aberdeen fans are getting in on it. Amongst other teams. It's only a few hours old and has already received over 270 responses and is growing quicker and quicker...

...I'm clearly not going to get any work done today...

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've seen this on the other thread too. At the moment the huns can be waved back in without sanction with the same vote. What measure do you think are designed to save them?

I hate them as much as the next man by the way but I don't see much in this in terms of making it easier for them. If anyhting there are now clear sanctions that would be applied in the event that the SPL did vote them back in. Sanctions that don't exist right now, but the voting back in does.

The resolutions introduce an apparently new concept - an 'Insolvency Transfer Event' - without defining it. Resolution 2A, which requires an 8-4 majority, acknowledges this concept, so by accepting the resolution the clubs will implicitly be accepting the concept. Resolution 2A appears ahead of resolution 5 on the agenda, so the concept is accepted and resolution 5 simply defines or refines it. The idea of an 'Insolvecy Transfer Event' has arisen purely to ease the introduction of Newhun into the SPL.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The resolutions introduce an apparently new concept - an 'Insolvency Transfer Event' - without defining it. Resolution 2A, which requires an 8-4 majority, acknowledges this concept, so by accepting the resolution the clubs will implicitly be accepting the concept. Resolution 2A appears ahead of resolution 5 on the agenda, so the concept is accepted and resolution 5 simply defines or refines it. The idea of an 'Insolvecy Transfer Event' has arisen purely to ease the introduction of Newhun into the SPL.

It acknowledges the concept in order that a sanction can be applied by the looks of it, otherwise ta newco can use the existing method of simply transferring the share and having it approved. If the insolvency event is not calrified and accepted then, as it stands now, they could be back in without sanction.

I don't see how by acknowledging the concept it makes it any easier to get through the vote you would need to transfer the share. As it stands the transfer could take place anyway, and we'd all be only too aware that it happened due to insolvency.

The only thing I can think of to suggest this makes it easier for them is that the clubs are thinking about the sanctions and making sure they are there, therefore it must be on their minds to let them back in. To be honest I think that is the case anyway, without these changes, so at least this and other financial issues would now have a clear avenue to action sanctions.

As I said above I don't want them back in but I think the reaction to this is a bit wide of the mark. There's plenty here that has big implications for Hearts in particular.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It acknowledges the concept in order that a sanction can be applied by the looks of it, otherwise ta newco can use the existing method of simply transferring the share and having it approved. If the insolvency event is not calrified and accepted then, as it stands now, they could be back in without sanction.

I don't see how by acknowledging the concept it makes it any easier to get through the vote you would need to transfer the share. As it stands the transfer could take place anyway, and we'd all be only too aware that it happened due to insolvency.

The only thing I can think of to suggest this makes it easier for them is that the clubs are thinking about the sanctions and making sure they are there, therefore it must be on their minds to let them back in. To be honest I think that is the case anyway, without these changes, so at least this and other financial issues would now have a clear avenue to action sanctions.

As I said above I don't want them back in but I think the reaction to this is a bit wide of the mark. There's plenty here that has big implications for Hearts in particular.

The problem is that it doesn't specify what an insolvency transfer event is but by passing the resolution the clubs will be accepting that such a thing exists and the SPL can make it whatever they want it to be. Resolution 2A could be passed (8-4) while resolution 5 could fail (11-1) thus we have acknowledgement of an insolvency transfer event which would allow RFC to carry one out. Furthermore the resolution reducing the SPL fees could also fail - it only needs one other club to oppose it - so we have Newhun in the SPL receiving 100% of the fees for second place.

I agree about the implications for Hearts which is why I'm stressing that each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits.

[jgl07]

All is not lost for Rangers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17678447

[ancient hibee]

If a NEWCO was formed it does not bear the debts of the oldco-after all that's the whole point.Therefore the idea that somehow a NEWCO would take on the sanctions earned by the oldco is unsustainable and would obviously lead to legal challenge which it will win.There is absolutely no way that a court will allow a NEWCO to be financially punished for something it has not done-apart from anything else there is the human rights position.Of course this could be part of the SPL plan to pretend that they are punishing Rangers when they will be doing nothing of the kind.